Swedens public sector is bigger precisly because Sweden is far more liberal. Charlemagne got it backwards, the conservative countries tax system are subsidicing stay at home wives careing for the children, not the other way round.

Government haters are not liberal, just like stay at home wife subsidicers. Both are ultra conservative.

Although Sweden has got a huge state I don't think it's fair to say that Sweden is a socialist state. The reason for Sweden's relative success is that we have a fairly unregulated market (everything from school vouchers to privatly run hospitals to the energy market etc), there's also a great support for free trade and globalisation, and we have fairly reasonable unions (for example many unions have in these hard times agreed to temporarly lower salaries in return for less work and less lay offs).

So in many ways Sweden's, and especially Stockholm's, market is more free than for example the US (and definitly more than most of continental Europe). Sweden just got a lot more publicly financed (but privatly run).

One was to automate everything. I never had to open a door myself in Sweden, they were all automatic. They even went as far as retrofitting church doors to be automatised. It probably gives some insight into how the Swedes view efficiency. There is no point in opening a door yourself if technology can do it for you, it is essentially, a waste of time and effort.

Thank you for the travel writing. Having lived in Sydney, Switzerland and northern Europe, I like your analysis of Stockholm. Of course, Stockholm is at its best in June and July.

The political system has been at a crossroads for several years. Indeed, the social democratic approach encourages conservative political correctness and pushes for ensuring the Swedish model survives. It is a fragile balance to maintain growth and political mœurs.

In the EU context however, the Swedish struggle at times to advance their agenda because they encourage transfering the Swedish model to the European level and lose sight of the limitations and differences of political will in other capitals.

From experience and observation, I have found their neighbours, the Finns, have proved consistently more successful in their lobbying efforts. They consult Brussels and other capitals in order to evaluate what is feasible and what is necessary for all of Europe. They then return to Helsinki and find solutions with the parameters set in Brussels and other European capitals.

The Swedish presidency has a considerably challenging agenda, like the French in 2008, but they will need to up their game to ensure it is still a European agenda for all 27 member states.

"I particularly admire the Swedish approach to winter, with its motto that THERE IS NOT SUCH THING AS BAD WEATHER, JUST THE WRONG CLOTHING. In the depths of winter, you will often see (heavily swaddled) babies out for a nap in their prams outdoors, or toddlers dashing about in all-in-one snowsuits."

For Sweden, the 'bad weather' is it being too cold outside. That isn't the only type of bad weather there is. If the 'bad weather' is it being too hot and/or humid, you can only change your clothes so much. You can't get more undressed than buck naked, and you still might be uncomfortable.

I'll agree with Sweden being--overall--admirable and competently-run, though. There is much other developed countries can learn from Sweden, and even a few tidbits that developing countries can glean, as well, in my opinion.

I am not sure what the take home message is ? Should inefficient states remain socialized and simply become more efficient or is it that inefficient socialized states should drop the socialist part because only the swedes can solve the paradox.

What does a liberal recommend when looking at Sweden ? Emulate the swedes and improve the efficiency of the state or just abandon because it is too difficult.